It was suggested to me that matching panels are actually using software or some sort of decision algorithms to assist with matching that use key-phrases or indicators to describe factors such as 2.Knowledge, training & experience and 12.Freedom to act i.e. the sort of factors that really carry significant values for scoring as you progress through higher bands. The concern that I have is that if your AfC job-role, as described in the AfC job specification doesn't exactly meet the requirement(s) for these key-factors then it's possible that you could be matched at the next lower appropriate Band than you expect.
If mistakes in identifying these key-indicators are made (in the job descriptions we write for AfC) then individuals may be matched to lower bands than they expect to be matched to, e.g. Band 4 instead of band 6. This may lead to the situation where highly skilled technicians subsequently earn considerable points off all the factors to achieve Band 5 but will never "leap that gap" that's been imposed between bands that can only be crossed by concentrating on factors that are included in the job profiles for Band 6 i.e. those with the significant points awards to factors 2,3,6,12 and 16.
My view is that factor 2 , as an example, could be one of those unambiguous key-factors that could be used to decide the approach that matching panels are going to take and that could be why individuals, who apparently meet factors 3, 6, 12 and 16 plus the rest, may find themselves on a lower band than they expect. My argument about factor 2, all along, has been that matchers may intrpret the statement "HNC/B.Eng/PgC or equivalent required" statements as "HNC required as a minimum" since HNC is the lesser requirement to hold the job and the B.Eng is "icing on the cake" so to speak. It's in the interest of employers and the Unions to match to the lowest requirement and no more.
Conversely it's in the interests of those being matched to have statements in the job-description that state the actual requirement - not the minimum acceptable but what the national profile states (HNC is not the qualification of a specialist - BEng/PgC equiv is- as defined by national profiles).
What's more significant is that matching panels may only award "equivalent points" for HNC since the unbelievable thing is that it's not even listed in the national profiles for technician qualifications. If this is the case the maximum obtainable points for factor 2 may not be even be attained. Only ONC/HND/B.Eng/PgC/MSc/PhD are listed formally. If the maximum points scored is determined by factor 2 maximum being BEng/PgC at level 6 then I guess that the actual points earned by a requirement for HNC minimum is less than that. What's worse HNC could be considered at a lower-level than HND/BEng (Qualified Technician level) and no better than ONC (Entry Level) i.e. HNC may, due to the way it's use has been avoided in the national profiles, effectively be considered as an entry-level qualification, like ONC, for the purposes of matching.
Remember:
“The difference in points between specialist and non-specialist, for JE, is 68 points or over 50% of that obtainable for Medical Engineering Technician, Higher Level on Band5. What I'm getting at is if any of the requirements of a job profile fail to meet a benchmark level that has no flexibility i.e. no scoring range (5-11 for example) then my concern is that the next lower benchmark may then be applied. In my view; at the very least this could drastically affect the 'scoring potential' of individuals despite their current responsibilities. Even worse it might mean the job specification being compared against a lower-level job profile as the benchmark. This means the next band (or two) down from the benchmark they might wish to have their job specification matched to.”
I'm inclined to suggest that any manager aiming to keep decent hardworking staff who're aiming for Band 6 and future propects, due to their responsibilities, skills and experience, should be given requirements in their job description that are unambiguous with no room for interpretation by the matching panel. The job description should focus on factors 2."B.Eng/PgC or equivalent required", 3. Analytical & judgemental skills, 6.Responsibility for patient care, 12.Freedom to act and 16.Working conditions. The use of the "B.Eng/PgC or equivalent required" statement for qualifications require in future can exploit the fact that HNC is not listed in the profiles - in future employers could state that HNC plus experince is actually equivalent to BEng/PgC since HNC is not a requirement elsewhere in the profiles to establish it as a qualification at a lower-level than specialist. Hence, in my opinion, setting this level of qualification shouldn't pose a problem to employers in future.
The other factors carry much the same value at lower bands anyhow - so "flowering them up" in an AfC job description will achieve very little - they are core tasks, duties and responsibilities that we all probably meet and exceed. I expect that if certain key-statements, that are unambiguous, are not made then matchers will look to match to a lower-level than what you'd expect. One of the initial key indicators of this has to be something unambiguous and tangible such as the future requirement for paper qualifications in my opinion. This could mean the difference between Band5 and Band6 for many I think.
